Talk:Holocaust denial

RFD

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Holocaust denial

SoP, encyclopedic, sacred cow (= PoV?). DCDuring TALK 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There's been a discussion on the talk page of the Wikipedia article about this, specifically the fact that in this term, Holocaust refers only the Jews, whereas it is normally accepted that other races and groups died in the Holocaust. The anti-Semitic part of the definition is not covered by the SoP argument. The term itself is not encyclopedic, but the definition is too long. I'd cut the bit from "either by denying ...etc". Not sure why you think it is POV.--Dmol (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP's discussion is irrelevant. This term refers to (deprecated template usage) denial of the (deprecated template usage) Holocaust, which we define solely as "The mass murder of Jews and other groups by the Nazi regime during World War II". Even if there were multiple definitions, one would be much like ours. We often seem to include SoP terms, often with encyclopedic definitions, because they are sacred cows. I view the inclusion of such terms as PoV pushing. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Even so, there is a difference between a holocaust and the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial hinges on the event denied being the one that occurred during World War II. By contrast, people who deny the Armenian Holocaust before World War I are not called Holocaust deniers. bd2412 T 00:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can agree that capitalized uses of "Holocaust" without previous reference to any holocausts almost solely refer to the one that occurred in Europe during WWII. However, AFAICT Dmol is correct that this term is only used in anti-Semitic contexts, and not in reference to other groups massacred in the Holocaust (gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, POWs, etc). Therefore we should keep this entry.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While it is probably true that capitalization makes that difference, I think it is important to note that people are historically sloppy about capitalization, and also that the phrase as a whole might come at the beginning of a sentence, which would make formal capitalization unclear. bd2412 T 00:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this term POV? It describes a particular viewpoint, but the term itself is neutral. "Obamacare" and "teabagger" are loaded terms. Both inextricably carry the views of the people who use them. But loaded terms exist, and it's not out of line for a dictionary to seek to define them, as long as the definitions themselves stay neutral. Astral (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that there are terms such as this for which we lose objectivity in our discussions for one reason or another: political or religious sensitivity, hormonal involvement, personal identity, etc. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Even though only used by people who have an unhealthy problem with Jews, I cannot see how Holocaust here is different from Holocaust in general, which usually is restricted to Jews. And judging from use I'd even go as far as to doubt that the term was ever used with reference to 'other groups'. Korn (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of mainstream scholarship that includes other groups. For example, see this explanation of the use of the term not just to refer to Jewish deaths. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We may need some additional definitions for holocaust/Holocaust, but they would just mean that there are several possible compositional meanings of Holocaust/holocaust denial. DCDuring TALK 04:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, my point is that our current definition of Holocaust as extending beyond Jews is supported, and Holocaust denial does not extend beyond Jews. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Ƿidsiþ 05:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, easy SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete That Holocaust denialists don't usually discuss non-Jews doesn't mean that they aren't denying the Holocaust as a whole. Denying the existence a gas chamber denies the existence of gassed Gypsies and homosexuals as much as gassed Jews.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as SOP, per Prosfilaes. I dispute the suggestion above that this term only refers to denial of the mass murder of Jews; I would refer to denial of the mass murder of the Roma and Sinti and of gay people as Holocaust denial, and obviously the denial of the entire Holocaust (mass murder of Roma, Sinti, Jews, homosexuals, etc) is Holocaust denial, not "Holocaust+ denial" or something. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

NB I removed the word anti-Semitic from the definition, as not necessarily true. There may be more than one meaning to deny the Holocaust. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear what the true definition of this word is to me (and how one would cite it), but with the present definition I agree that it should be deleted. If I ever manage to find citations that obviously only refer to anti-Semitism, I will recreate it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Armenian genocide denial and moon landing denial are also citable, and probably many more, but they are all (event) + denial SOPs. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, it may be possible to cite Holocaustdenial so that Holocaust denial will meet COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. BTW, in some places it is considered a crime and knowing translations can be useful. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Important term. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I haven't actually !voted yet, keep. There have been many events historically that have been described as a "holocaust", or could be so described, and anyone can capitalize that word if they feel like it. However, the terms Holocaust denial and Holocaust denier refer to only one such event. Note that the phrse is not "The Holocaust denier" (as in, Joe is a The Holocaust denier). bd2412 T 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@Matthias Buchmeier and others, I assume you mean it's an important term for cultural reasons, not linguistic ones. I find that highly questionable, for example we don't have Gulf War or Iraq War which are also culturally important, if not less so. Nobody, I mean nobody, will argue this has any linguistic merit. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The linguistic merit is the translations. The are in many cases not SOP. Yes, we don't have Gulf War but we have e.g. American Civil War, which in your argumentation would also be SOP in the same way. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather think the merit in American Civil War is that it is a proper name containing a totum pro parte. There could be other "American Civils Wars" which are SOP, but in this one "American" means '13 European colonies on the northern American continent' rather than 'pertaining to the continents of America'. Korn (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out in a previous debate, weather in London might have 'interesting' translations, but surely only interestingness of translations is not a reason to keep a whole entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• comment: I reverted User:-sche's edit. That was not what the term means, and why IMO a dictionary definition is necessary. Esp. with the legal implications. It's a bit like "anti-Semitism" referring to Jew-hatred, and not hatred of Aramaeans or Arabs, who are (arguably) also Semites. kwami (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that this is a legal term in English (not a corresponding French or German term)? DCDuring TALK 13:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I further note that there is only one citation provided and that our "definition" is an apparent COPYVIO from that citation. In any event, if some citations were to show that they used Holocaust only referring to Jews and others referring to more aspects of the historical events, that would demonstrate that the term was SoP. Unless the present definition is cited I will RfV it if this is kept, add the broader definition, cite that, and open a new RfD. I would bet that the relative frequency of the two senses roughly corresponds to the relative frequency of the two senses of Holocaust. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about legal status in English.

Not a copyvio, since it was written independently of that source.

I doubt it. AFAIK, the term refers specifically to the the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Although HD may be part of a larger apologetics of the Nazis, AFAIK denying their crimes in general is not called HD. kwami (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring. "Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to a subset of the Nazis' democide, other times to refer to the entire democide; two corresponding senses of "Holocaust denial" are probably about as relative-frequently attested, and are still SOP. "Second World War weapon" isn't made non-SOP just because some people include the events of 1936-1938 in the war while others include only 1939-1945. Let's RFV both Holocaust and Holocaust denial to get some coarse idea of the relative frequency of the senses. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, essentially just denial of the Holocaust. --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I still vehemently dispute that this is anything but SOP, but as long as it's staying, I have re-added the clearly widespread broad definition. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

broad definition

sche, you say that definitions must be cited or be deleted, yet you insist on adding an uncited definition. That makes no sense. Either cite it, or let it go. kwami (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, "one of the two uncited senses"? The only uncited sense is the one you keep adding. If you want to preserve it, move it here to talk. You're violating policy by your own definition, which is just weird. kwami (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The narrow sense has no citations that meet WT:ATTEST: unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary doesn't accept links to non-durably-archived internet sites as citations. So far, I've placed one citation of the broad sense [1]. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The citation in the entry *is* durably archived. I've added several additional print or archived citations.

And no, you placed one citation of the narrow sense. All it says is that holocaust deniers generally deny other Nazi crimes as well. The broad sense remains uncited. kwami (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Re my citation: I suppose it's up to the community to decide which of our interpretations is correct.

Re your citations:

• The Niewyk citation doesn't use the term "Holocaust denial", so it should probably be moved to Citations:Holocaust. (I note, btw, that it is also trivial to find authors who use "Holocaust" to refer to the murder of all 11 million people, just as it is trivial to find authors who use it as Niewyk does to refer only to the murder of 5 or 6 million. I suppose the definition of Holocaust should be split into broad and narrow senses to reflect this. Can we do that without a formal RFV, or would you similarly dispute that "Holocaust" is ever broad?)
• The "Contemporary examples..." and Austin citations also don't use the term "Holocaust denial". It might seem silly if you're used to WP's way of referencing articles, but Wiktionary requires citations to actually use the specific lemma (term) in question (not a related form like denier vs denial).
• The Mathis and Shermer+Grobman citations are two great citations of the narrow sense, thank you!
• Roth's citation shows how SOP this term is and why it should have been deleted, by re-arranging the component parts and thus not actually using the term "Holocaust denial".
• Has the JPR citation been published in a book or journal? It isn't obvious... but if so, it meets WT:ATTEST, and if not, it most likely does not. (After at least half a dozen Beer Parlour discussions in the past two years, Wiktionary's policy of accepting basically only printed material and Usenet remains.)
• The ADL page says it excerpts from a printed book, which means it meets ATTEST, and it supports the narrow sense. Good!
• Lipstadt's snippet is ambiguous, but there are three clear citations of the narrow sense (which is all WT:CFI require), namely Mathis, Shermer+Grobman and ADL, so it doesn't matter. - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not what ATTEST says. It only requires that the citations be "durable". They don't have to be in print. It even says, "Print media such as books and magazines will also do". kwami (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2012/February#Citations_from_online_sources, and before you point to the Internet Archive, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2012/March#More_on_the_Wayback_Machine and Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/August#Inquiry_-_Archive.org_versus_webcitation.org (a more recent but brief discussion of the latter archiving site: Wiktionary:Information_desk#Durably_archived). If you're interested, a relatively recent general discussion of what is considered durable is here: Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/November#What_are_the_durably_archived_sources.3F. Feel free to start a BP thread if you have a new reason why websites should be considered durably archived.

(PS: for a discussion of the durableness of songs and CD-inserts, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2012/May#Non-written_attestations; for a discussion of WikiSource and other Wikis, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2008/December#Is_WikiSource_a_durable_archive.3F; for Google News, see Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/July#Google_News_Archive.) - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

BP discussion are not policy. ATTEST is. ATTEST does not say that. I assume that's because there's no consensus to add it in. Until it is, it is not policy. kwami (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The en.Wiktionary community interprets ATTEST in the way reflected in those BP discussions. If your interpretation of ATTEST is different from the prevailing interpretation, start a BP discussion, but until community consensus changes, policy will continue to be applied according to the current consensus — the one those BP discussions reflect. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it's absolutely ludicrous to maintain two separate definitions here. Most citations out there cannot be confidently attributed to one or the other, and therefore these gradations of meaning should be merged (just as they are at (deprecated template usage) Holocaust itself). Ƿidsiþ 07:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I favour (and twice attempted) such a merger. Indeed, I would most prefer to define "Holocaust denial" simply as "[[denial]] of the [[Holocaust]", and let [[Holocaust]] do all the 'heavy lifting'. (Actually, I would most prefer to see it deleted as an obvious SOP, but...) - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I detagged both senses because they have been cited. I then merged the senses into "denial of the Holocaust", as explained on WT:RFV. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Holocaust denial

The broad sense is clearly in widespread use, but given the edit history (which see) should probably be formally cited. I suppose the narrow sense is also in wide use, but it would be best if it, too, could be cited in our usual way. (And yes, the term is entirely SOP, but it was kept at RFD because there was no consensus.) - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've placed one citation here (that's a link to the full paragraph; I trimmed it in subsequent edits per our standard practice of not having paragraph-long citations unless absolutely necessary). - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami has cited the narrow sense (see the citations on the Citations page and the discussion of them on the talk page); Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV has added 2-3 more citations of the broad sense. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I've started citing [[Holocaust]]. - -sche (discuss) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The broad sense is now cited thanks to Ungoliant and me; the narrow sense probably also has enough durably-archived citations, thanks to Kwamikagami. (If you're sick of people beating the dead horse of "but the internet is durable!!1!1" you may want to look away from the talk page.) The countable sense "an instance of such denial", added after the RFV tag and thus not (yet) subject to RFV, has one citation. I've added a usage note to the entry and to [[Holocaust]], describing the debate over the meaning of the term. - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinions are solicited regarding whether the keep the "11" and "6" senses separate or merge them. ([[Holocaust]] is an example of an entry which does not have separate senses for the "11" and "6" definitions, and which has a usage note instead.) See Talk:Holocaust denial. - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that [[Holocaust]] would contain the distinction, which seems the kind of "encyclopedic" information that has become integral to the very use of the word. It also seems to me that any expressions that uses the word Holocaust is potentially entangled in the same ambiguity and associated controversy. The simplest thing to do that might lead to high-quality entries would be to improve [[Holocaust]] with a second sense and then determine whether there was any reason to maintain separate senses at the expressions using Holocaust and proceed normally from there. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The obvious solution is just to change the definitions to a single "Denial of the Holocaust." But I bet that won't happen. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring: as Widsith points out on Talk:Holocaust denial, many if not most uses of the base term "Holocaust" (and the derived term "Holocaust denial") will not make clear whether they are designating the "11 million" or the "6 million". There was a similar discussion about the word [[atheist]]/[[atheism]], but there, there already was a sense supported by citations with clear meanings which also covered unclear citations: here, to have separate senses, we'd need three, like:

1. Designation of the mass murder of either 11 million people including 6 million Jews, or only of 6 million Jews.
   1. The mass murder of 11 million people including 6 million Jews.
   2. The mass murder of 6 million Jews.

I'm not firmly opposed to that, but it does seem a less ideal solution than only having the first definiton, "11 or 6". (For one thing, all the translations currently in the entry would have to become {{ttbc}}s until someone determined if they meant "11 or 6", "11" or "6".) - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@Mglovesfun: I support such a simplification of the def. I would guess Widsith would also support it. One of the two arguments for keeping the term some users put forth on RFD was the argument that "Holocaust denial" only denoted denial of one sense of [[Holocaust]], so some other users might oppose... but then, the citations added to [[Holocaust denial]] have shown that RFD argument to be mistaken. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Mglovesfun's and DCDuring's suggestion and in agreement with Widsith's comment, I have merged definitions to "denial of the Holocaust". "Holocaust denier" already has a similar definition ("one who denies the Holocaust").

I tend to agree with Widsith that a single definition (in this case, of "Holocaust") is best because most uses will not make clear which sense of the term they are using: and because if we split senses, we may need another definition to account for uses that mean "the genocide of 6 million Jews and the genocide of the Roma", as distinct from either the "only 6 million Jews" or "all 11 million people" definitions. Nevertheless, to suit those who insist it has one or the other specific sense, and because the different specific senses have some different synonyms and hypernyms (e.g. genocide vs democide), I could support a split. {{context|narrowly}} The genocide of 6 million Jews by... could even be the first def, with {{context|narrowly}} The democide of 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, by... as the second or third def (depending upon whether a "Jews + Roma" def can be cited). - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Struck as resolved (months ago). - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RFD 2

See Talk:holocaust survivor. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)